I move amendment No. 287 :—
In line 64, after " months " to add " or to a fine not exceeding £20 or to both such imprisonment and such fine ".
SECTION 251.
We will have this examined also.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 251 agreed to.
SECTION 252.
I move amendment No. 288 :—
In sub-section (1), line 9, after " years " to add " or to a fine not exceeding £100 or to both such imprisonment and such fine ".
This is where a person incites a disaffection, etc. He can be imprisoned for two years. I want to add the power in the discretion of a Circuit Court judge to fine as well. It increases the power of punishment.
I have been strongly appealed to not to accept this.
This is such a serious offence that if I were to favour Deputy Cowan's amendment I would like to strike out " not exceeding ". However, when you think over it, the man to whom £100 would be a really serious punishment would not be able to find it and would go to jail, while the man who would be able to find it would not consider it a serious punishment. It would be better, on balance, to leave it to imprisonment.
He may be sentenced to a term not exceeding two years. Some cases are more serious than others, and one could depend on the common sense of the judge as to whether it would be two years or two months. A judge may say : " I will hit this fellow hard, fining him £50 and giving him six months' imprisonment." He could impose both and give the alternative of paying the £50 or taking another six months.
The objection I see is the one the Deputy mentioned himself, that he may get off with a week or a month. There should be a minimum.
A person committing this offence would possibly have an organisation behind him which would regard £60 or £100 as a mere detail.
I do not see many cases in which it will arise. If it is the feeling of the Committee that we should not provide an alternative punishment. I will withdraw the amendment ; but I feel it would not be weakening the section in any way to add the fine and make the man liable to both.
There is a lot to be said for Deputy Cowan's point. I wonder if there should not be a minimum penalty, as in the case of some supply offences during the war, where it was made mandatory to impose a certain punishment and it was left to the Executive to remit. It was an objectionable practice in the ordinary way, but it was necessary in those particular circumstances. I think it should be " not less than three months and not exceeding two years ".
If one fellow was not able to pay £100 he would have to do the sentence, while another man would get away with the fine. The first would say later on : " I was not able to pay the fine and had to do my term."
Mr. Brennan
The offence is so serious that the question of a fine should not be raised at all.
If that is the feeling. I will withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 289 not moved.
Section 252 agreed to.